Cedar Properties & Trading LLP Vs . Maskon Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.

Case Title:Cedar Properties & Trading LLP Vs . Maskon Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.

Date of Order:6th February 2025

Case Number:CS(COMM) 223/2022

Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:904

Court:High Court of Delhi

Presiding Judge:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

Brief Facts of the Case:

The plaintiffs, Cedar Properties & Trading LLP & Ors., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from using the trade mark "DROTOWIN" for medicinal preparations, alleging infringement and passing off of their registered trade mark "DROTIN".

The plaintiffs, involved in the manufacture, sale, and marketing of pharmaceutical products, had introduced the "DROTIN" trade mark in 1997 for drugs treating abdominal pain, particularly in cases of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). The mark was registered in Class 5 under Trade Mark No. 732349, and substantial goodwill and reputation were claimed through extensive sales and advertisements.

In December 2021, the plaintiffs discovered the defendants' use of the mark "DROTOWIN" for similar products, with confusingly similar visual and phonetic characteristics.

Key Issues for Determination:

1. Was the defendants' mark "DROTOWIN" deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered mark "DROTIN"?

2. Did the defendants' adoption of the "DROTOWIN" mark constitute trade mark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

3. Did the defendants engage in passing off by misrepresenting their goods as those of the plaintiffs?

4. Was the case suitable for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)?

Judicial Reasoning and Analysis:

1. Deceptive Similarity and Infringement:

The Court observed a high degree of similarity between "DROTIN" and "DROTOWIN", both phonetically and visually. The defendants’ mark replicated the prefix "DROT" and suffix "IN", differing only by inserting "OW" in the middle. Given the identical goods and shared target consumers, the Court concluded that the similarity was likely to cause confusion.

Legal Reference:

Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Prohibits use of marks that are deceptively similar to registered marks, particularly when used for similar goods.

2. Passing Off:

The Court noted that the defendants sought to capitalize on the plaintiffs' goodwill. The similar trade dress, product function, and branding indicated an intent to mislead consumers into associating the defendant’s products with the plaintiffs'.

Key Finding:

The defendants' adoption of the mark was found to be dishonest and calculated to exploit the plaintiffs’ established reputation.

3. Absence of Defence:

Despite being served with notices, the defendants did not file any substantive defence or appear in court after 12th October 2023. The Court inferred that the defendants had no valid grounds to contest the claims.

4. Applicability of Summary Judgment:

The Court applied the principles from Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764, which emphasized that commercial disputes could be disposed of summarily if the defendant had no realistic prospect of success and no compelling reason warranted a full trial.

Given the clear evidence of infringement and the defendants' lack of participation, the Court deemed summary judgment appropriate.

Decision of the Court:

The Delhi High Court granted a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from using the marks "DROTOWIN" or "DROTOWIN DS" or any mark deceptively similar to "DROTIN" in relation to pharmaceutical goods.

The Court found the defendants' actions constituted both trade mark infringement and passing off, and dismissed the need for further evidence due to the lack of any plausible defence. The remaining reliefs sought were not pressed by the plaintiffs, and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.